‘Although the courts of the United Kingdom had jurisdiction judicially to review an Order in Council made on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom acting in whole or in part in the interests of the United Kingdom, there were circumstances in which the court should nevertheless decline to entertain a claim for judicial review. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court ought to have declined to entertain a human rights-compatibility challenge to legislation enacted in respect of the Island of Sark— a Crown dependency which was part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey but not of the United Kingdom— since it ought properly to have been brought before the bailiwick courts for determination under the island’s own human rights legislation.’

“The power under section 1(1) of the United Nations Act 1946 to create a criminal offence by Order in Council so as to enforce a United Nations Security Council Resolution was not restricted to use at or about the same time as when the Resolution had been passed.”

“An Order in Council, made pursuant to s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 to give effect to a United Nations Security Council Resolution, could include the creation of a serious criminal offence for a breach of the Order, even though there was a substantial delay between the adoption of the Resolution and the creation of the offence.”

“In introducing a test of reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism as the basis for making an asset-freezing order against him under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury exceeded its powers under the enabling provisions of s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946.”

“The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was lawful and validly made under s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946 provided certain words were severed from art 4(2) so that it required the Treasury to show that it had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person designated was involved in committing or facilitating terrorism and not merely might be such a person. The Al-Qaida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was also valid and lawful so long as the designated individual was entitled to a merits based review of his case.”